UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1637

HENRY UCHE OKPALA,

Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION, CSC,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
ROBIN SCHERMERHORN, CSC; DAVID H. MARTIN, CSC; WILLIAM
SHOCKRO, CSC; CENTERS FOR MEDICARE & MEDICAID SERVICES, CMS,
Third Party,
Defendants.

No. 15-1914

HENRY UCHE OKPALA,

Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION, CSC,
Defendant - Appellee,
and

ROBIN SCHERMERHORN, CSC; DAVID H. MARTIN, CSC; WILLIAM

SHOCKRO, CSC; CENTERS FOR MEDICARE & MEDICAID SERVICES, CMS,
Third Party,
Defendants.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District
of Maryland, at Baltimore.
J. Frederick Motz, Senior District
Judge. (1:13-cv-03614-JFM)

Submitted:

November 30, 2015

Before WYNN and

Circuit Judge.

DIAZ,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

and

January 20, 2016

HAMILTON,

Senior

No. 15-1637 dismissed; No. 15-1914 affirmed by unpublished per

curiam opinion.

Henry Uche Okpala, Appellant Pro Se.

Frank Daniel Wood, Jr.,
KULLMAN FIRM, Birmingham, Alabama, Joseph Richard Ward, III,
KULLMAN LAW FIRM, New Orleans, Louisiana, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Henry Uche Okpala seeks to
appeal

the

recusal

district

and

granting

courts
summary

orders

denying

judgment

to

his

motion

Computer

for

Sciences

Corporation (CSC).
This

court

may

exercise

jurisdiction

only

over

final

orders, 28 U.S.C. 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and

collateral

orders,

28

U.S.C.

1292

(2012);

Fed.

R.

Civ.

P.

54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 54546 (1949).

The district courts recusal order is neither a

final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal in No. 15-1637 for lack of
jurisdiction.

The fact that final judgment issued while this appeal was
pending does not give us jurisdiction over this appeal because
the district courts recusal order was not an order that could
have been followed by the immediate issuance of partial final
judgment.
In re Bryson, 406 F.3d 284, 288 (4th Cir. 2005)
([Appellate] Rule 4(a)(2) does not allow a premature notice of
appeal from a clearly interlocutory decision . . . to serve as a
notice of appeal from the final judgment. (internal quotation
marks omitted)).
Additionally, to the extent Okpalas informal briefs in No.
15-1637 could be construed as a request for a writ of mandamus
or No. 15-1914 could be construed as challenging the denial of
Okpalas recusal motions, Okpala has failed to establish a valid
basis for recusal.
See Belue v. Leventhal, 640 F.3d 567, 573
(4th Cir. 2011) ([J]udicial rulings and opinions formed by the
judge on the basis of facts introduced or events occurring in
the
course
of
the
current
proceedings,
or
of
prior
proceedings[,] almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias
(Continued)
3

In No. 15-1914, Okpala appeals the district courts order

granting summary

judgment

to

CSC.

Okpala

contends

that

(1)

CSCs motion for summary judgment was untimely, and (2) he was
denied adequate opportunity for discovery under Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(d).

Upon review of the record, we conclude that the summary

judgment

motion

was

timely

because

it

was

filed

within

the

deadline set by the district court in its May 4, 2015 order.

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(b) (Unless a different time is set by
local rule or the court orders otherwise, a party may file a
motion for summary judgment at any time until 30 days after the
close

of

all

discovery.

(emphasis

added));

see

also

Fayetteville Invrs v. Commercial Builders, Inc., 936 F.2d 1462,

1469

(4th

Cir.

1991)

reconsideration
judgment.).

at
We

(An

any
also

interlocutory

time

prior

conclude

to

that

order

the

is

entry

Okpala

was

subject
of

to

final

given

ample

opportunity for discovery but refused to engage in the discovery

process according to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
that,

in

discovery

any

event,

could

submitted by CSC.

Okpala

enable

him

has

not

shown

to

overcome

how
the

the

requested

ample

evidence

Pisano v. Strach, 743 F.3d 927, 931 (4th Cir.

or partiality motion. (internal quotation marks omitted)); see

also In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th
Cir. 1988) (holding that mandamus relief is available only if
petitioner has shown a clear right to the relief sought).

2014) ([A] court may deny a Rule 56(d) motion [for further
discovery]
create

when

the

genuine

information

issue

of

sought

material

would

fact

nonmovant to survive summary judgment.).

not

by

sufficient

itself
for

the

Therefore, we affirm

the district courts grant of summary judgment to CSC.

Accordingly, in No. 15-1637, we dismiss the appeal for lack
of

jurisdiction,

and

courts judgment.
facts

and

materials

legal
before

in

No.

15-1914,

we

affirm

the

district

We dispense with oral argument because the

contentions

are

adequately

this

and

argument

court

presented

would

not

in

the

aid

the

decisional process.
No. 15-1637 DISMISSED
No. 15-1914 AFFIRMED